 |
Email Topic DiscussionThis section of the forum is to discuss each weekly newsletter topic. Please feel free to share your opinion! |
| Public write access is disabled. Please login or register |
 | Last post |
| Forum | » Email Topic Discussion | » Is There a Line to Draw |
  17 posts --- Location: Canada Administrator  |
23.01.2012 09:45Is There a Line to DrawWhen we criticize religion, even in the mildest way, we are often reminded that the examples we use are not typical and that we are stereotyping religious people based on a few fanatics. I have two quarrels with those statements. First, religion is at the base of many fanatics and second the religious people who are not fanatics are far too ready to refrain from comment about fanatical actions. I am getting rather tired of hearing that most religious people are neither fanatical nor violent and therefore their religion should not be held accountable for the actions of “a few”. While most religious people are not violent, religions by their very nature nurture extreme acts. All religions claim to have the only answer and that the other religions have it all wrong. Most encourage followers to speak out against non-followers and to act against them. The result is continued intolerance under the guise of religious freedom. Religious leaders get away with statements that would have the rest of us charged with generating hate literature. They have a particular sense of immunity when it comes to insulting non-believers. At the same time many believers are so busy claiming that any fanatics associated with their religion do not represent “most” of their group that they forget to condemn the fanatics and often take little or no action against them. The Vatican did not excommunicate Hitler or any of his henchmen (they were all Roman Catholic) except Goebbels whom they tossed out because he divorced his wife. Michael Enright, on Sunday Edition once asked a Muslim cleric what he would do if members of his congregation revealed to him that they were going to commit a terrorist act. The cleric, quite rightly, said that he would counsel them against such an act. However, Enright pursued the matter, asking whether the cleric would report the people to the authorities if they said they were going to commit the act anyway. His answer – a spine chilling, “Well, I wouldn’t want to be a stool pigeon." So, is there a line to draw between those theists whom we can see are peace-loving individuals and the fanatics? There may be, but it must be a blurry and faded one and it’s time theists stepped up and helped us draw it more clearly. www.secularconnexion.ca |
 Veronica Abbass 2 posts --- Location: n.a. |
23.01.2012 10:56 Re: Is There a Line to Draw Thank you for this post. I commented on it here: http://canadianatheist.com/2012/01/23/enablers/ |
 Paracelsus 6 posts --- Location: Cobble Hill Canada |
06.02.2012 15:22 Re: Is There a Line to Draw Yes, there most certainly is a "line to draw". The reply of the Muslim cleric to Michael Enright demonstrates just how religions consider themselves to be "above the law" and privileged.Doctors who found that they were in the same situation would be obliged to breach “confidentiality” and report this to the police.(Wynia 2007) There is, of course, the problem of "intention" dealt with at length in her lectures by Elizabeth Anscombe. (Anscombe 2000) It may well be that this person’s stated intention is that he or she is planning some form of a terrorist act. Nevertheless, the context in which this statement occurs is important. A doctor hearing this information may have to take into consideration the mental and physical state of his patient.(Hill 2000) ("Physical state" may also imply whether the person is incarcerated in a mental institution). (Klinka 2009) Just how well does the Muslim Cleric know his congregation? There is, unfortunately, considerable "wiggle room" in most ethical codes.(Harris 1995) I am not aware that there are any enforceable Ethical Codes, or even “guidelines” for Religious leaders. Do they “make it up as they go along”? However I did find this: http://www.cecconline.com/node/11 One wonders about the way in which the Catholic Church dealt, or is dealing, with the child abuse scandals. Presumably confessions were heard but not acted upon? Culpable only if they get caught. References Anscombe, G.E.M. 2000. Intention, 2 ed. Oxford, Havard University Press. Harris, J. 1995. The elimination of morality. Journal of Medical Ethics, 21, (4) 220-224 Hill, S.A. 2000. The man who claimed to be a paedophile. Journal of Medical Ethics, 26, (2) 137-138 Klinka, E. 2009. It's been a privilege: advising patients of the Tarasoff duty and its legal consequences for the federal psychotherapist-patient privilege. Fordham Law Review, 78, (2) 863-931 Wynia, M.K. 2007. Breaching confidentiality to protect the public: evolving standards of medical confidentiality for military detainees. American Journal of Bioethics, 7, (8) 1-5 The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way. Bertrand Russell (1872–1970). Unpopular Essays |
| Forum | » Email Topic Discussion | » Is There a Line to Draw |
Replies Topic